Appeal decision made on 140 homes between Chichester and Lavant

The Berkeley Group wanted outline planning permissions for land just off Lavant Road opposite the junction with Hunters Race south of Raughmere Drive.

Although within the Lavant parish, the site is directly adjacent to the northern boundary of Chichester city, while the northern edge adjoins the South Downs National Park.

Chichester District Council planning officers refused an application in July 2021 concluding the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The developer appealed against the decision, but a planning inspector has sided with the council.

In their decision notice published today (Monday April 11), the inspector described how the ‘open nature of the gap and the site in particular’ was ‘in sharp contrast’ to the built-up nature of Chichester and Lavant, contributing to both the physical and perceived separation of the two.

They suggested allowing the development would substantially reduce the open part of the site and diminish the gap.

The report added: “This effect would be compounded by the interventions proposed on Lavant Road and the northern part of the site. At present, despite its traffic, the appearance of Lavant Road is not urban. Upon passing the petrol filling station and emerging from the wooded area, the immediate impression of leaving Chichester and entering rurality is reinforced by the narrowing of the road, the treatment of its edges, its enclosing/bordering features and the visibility of the South Downs.”

The inspector also raised issues with living conditions of potential occupiers due to road traffic noise and noise from the Goodwood Aerodrome and Goodwood Motor Circuit.

Although noting the council’s local plan is older than five years, they also concluded CDC could demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

The report concluded: “The harm caused by the proposed development’s impact on the character and appearance of the area, and the likely living conditions of residents, would be substantial. The adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits such that the proposal does not represent sustainable development.”